Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 25. november 2006 / Timeline November 25, 2006
Version 3.524. November 2006, 26. November 2006
11/25/2006
Den internationale dag for afskaffelse af vold mod kvinder.
11/25/2006
Violence Against Women: Stories You Rarely Hear About
23 November 2006
UNITED NATIONS, New York—Every day, women all over the world
are abducted into forced marriage; subjected to harmful traditional
practices; married, while still children, to far older men; and
injured through gang rape and rape with foreign
objects—usually during conflict. In Guatemala, the death toll
of murdered and mutilated women has already reached more than 500
for this year alone and has climbed steadily during the last five
years. In 2005, 665 women were found murdered, compared to 494 in
2004. For a small country of 12 millions, these numbers are
alarming and by far surpass those of the better-known homicides of
young women in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.
Every year, the plight of these women is too often ignored,
consigned to the back pages of newspapers or relegated to no more
than a passing mention in mainstream broadcast media—if at
all.
To kick off the annual 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based
Violence, UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, is
highlighting five under-reported stories relating to gender-based
violence for 2006.
These stories are as hidden as they are diverse. They include:
The rising tide of ‘bridenapping’—the abduction,
rape and forced marriage of young women throughout Central
Asia;
Breast-ironing, a traditional practice in a number of West African
countries that involves crushing the breasts of young girls in
order to deter male attention;
The epidemic of traumatic fistula in Africa, which is caused by
gang rape and often the forced insertion of foreign objects into
the rape victim. This results in the tearing of the delicate
tissues separating the birth canal from the bowel and/or the
bladder. Seriously injured and psychologically traumatized, the
victim is left incontinent, leaking faeces, urine, or both. Too
often, her family and community rejects her, to live out the
remainder of her life as a pariah—doubly
stigmatized—both by the rape itself and its terrible
consequences.
The ongoing femicide of women in the Central American country of
Guatemala. Unlike the killings of young women in Ciudad Juarez, on
the El Paso/Mexico border, the wholesale murder and mutilation of
Guatemala’s women continues to be enacted under a cloak of
media silence and official neglect.
Child marriage—the forced marriage of girl
children—most often against their will, to (usually) older
men. Most of these marriages take place in the world’s
poorest nations and mean girls are unable to complete their
education; are at greater risk of being exploited, of contracting
sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, and of dying or
being injured in childbirth owing to the fact that their bodies are
too immature to withstand the rigours of birth.
To learn more about five under reported stories on gender-based
violence, please visit www.unfpa.org.
The United Nations Population Fund is an international development
agency that promotes the right of every woman, man and child to
enjoy a life of health and equal opportunity. UNFPA supports
countries in using population data for policies and programmes to
reduce poverty and to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every
birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV/AIDS, and every
girl and woman is treated with dignity and respect.
11/25/2006
An Evening in Jounieh
By: Uri Avnery
DURING THE first Lebanon war, I visited Jounieh, a town some 20 km
north of Beirut. At the time, it served as a port for the Christian
forces. It was an exciting evening.
In spite of the war raging in nearby Beirut, Jounieh was full of
life. The Christian elite spent the day in the sun-drenched marina,
the women lounging in bikinis, the men slugging whisky. The three
of us (myself and two young women) from my editorial staff - a
correspondent and a photographer) were the only Israelis in town,
and so we were feted. Everybody invited us onto their yachts, and
one rich couple insisted that we come to their home as guests of a
family celebration.
It was indeed something special. The dozens of family members
belonged to the cream of the elite - rich merchants, a well-known
painter, several university professors. The drinks flowed like
water, the conversation flowed in several languages.
Around midnight, everybody was slightly drunk. The men got me into
a "political" conversation. They knew that I was an Israeli, but
had no idea about my views.
"Why don't you go into West Beirut?" one portly gentleman asked me.
West Beirut was held by Arafat's PLO forces, who were defending
hundreds of thousands of Sunni inhabitants.
"Why? What for?" I queried.
"What do you mean? To kill them! To kill everybody!"
"Everybody? Women and children, too?"
"Of course! All of them!"
For a moment, I thought that he was joking. But the faces of the
men around him told me that he was deadly serious and that
everybody agreed with him.
At that moment I grasped that this beautiful country, rich in
history, blessed with all the pleasure of life, is sick. Very, very
sick.
The next day I indeed went into West Beirut, but for another
purpose altogether. I crossed the lines to meet with Yasser
Arafat.
(By the way, at the end of the party in Jounieh my hosts gave me a
parting present: a big packet of hashish. On the morrow, on my way
back to Israel, after Arafat had made our meeting public, I heard
over the radio that four ministers were demanding that I should be
put on trial for treason. I remembered the hashish and it went
sailing out of the car window.)
I AM reminded of that conversation in Jounieh every time something
happens in Lebanon. This week, for example.
Much nonsense is being spoken and written about that country, as if
it were a country like any other. George W. Bush talks about
"Lebanese democracy" as if there were such a thing, others speak
about the "parliamentary majority" and "minority factions"' about
the need for "national unity" to uphold "national independence", as
if they were talking about the Netherlands or Finland. All these
have no connection with Lebanese reality.
Geographically, Lebanon is a torn country, and there lies a part of
the secret of its beauty. Snow-covered mountain chains, green
valleys, picturesque villages, beautiful sea-shore. But Lebanon is
also torn socially. The two schisms are inter-connected: in the
course of history, persecuted minorities from all over the region
sought refuge between its mountains, where they could defend
themselves.
The result: a large number of big and small communities, ready to
spring to arms at any moment. At best, Lebanon is a loose
federation of mutually suspicious communities, at worst a
battlefield of feuding groups which hate each other's guts. The
annals of Lebanon are full of civil wars and horrible massacres.
Many times, this or that community called in foreign enemies to
assist it against its neighbors.
Between the communities, there are no permanent alliances. One day,
communities A and B get together to fight community C. The next
day, B and C fight against A. Moreover, there are sub-communities,
which more than once have been known to make an alliance with an
opposing community against their own.
Altogether, a fascinating mosaic, but also a very dangerous one -
the more so since every community keeps a private army, equipped
with the best of weapons. The official Lebanese army, composed of
men from all communities, is unable to carry out any meaningful
mission.
What is a Lebanese "community"? On the face of it, it's all about
religion. But not only religion. The community is also an ethnic
tribe, with some national attributes. A Jew will easily understand
this, since the Jews are also such a community, even if spread
around the world. But for an ordinary European or American, it is
difficult to understand this structure. It is easier to think about
a "Lebanese nation" - a nation that exists only in the imagination
or as a vision of the future.
The loyalty to the community comes before any other loyalty - and
certainly before any loyalty to Lebanon. When the rights of a
community or sub-community are menaced, its members rise up as one
in order to destroy those who are threatening them.
THE MAIN communities are the Christian, the Sunni-Muslim, the
Shiite-Muslim and the Druze (who, as far as religion goes, are a
kind of extreme Shiites.) The Christians are divided into several
sub-communities, the most important of which are the Maronites
(named after a saint who lived some 1600 years ago.) The Sunnis
were brought to Lebanon by the (Sunni) Ottoman rulers to strengthen
their hold, and were mainly settled in the large port cities. The
Druze came to find refuge in the mountains. The Shiites, whose
importance has risen over the last few decades, were for many
centuries a poor and down-trodden community, a doormat for all the
others.
As in almost all Arab societies, the Hamula (extended family) plays
a vital role in all communities. Loyalty to the Hamula precedes
even loyalty to the community, according to the ancient Arab
saying: "With my cousin against the foreigner, with my brother
against my cousin." Almost all Lebanese leaders are chiefs of the
great families.
TO GIVE some idea of the Lebanese tangle, a few recent examples: in
the civil war that broke out in 1975, Pierre Gemayel, the chief of
a Maronite family, called upon the Syrians to invade Lebanon in
order to help him against his Sunni neighbors, who were about to
attack his territory. His grandson by the same name, who was
murdered this week, was a member of a coalition whose aim is to
liquidate Syrian influence in Lebanon. The Sunnis, who were
fighting against the Syrians and the Christians, are now the allies
of the Christians against the Syrians.
The Gemayel family was the main ally of Ariel Sharon, when he
invaded Lebanon in 1982. The common aim was to drive out the
(mainly Sunni) Palestinians. For that purpose, Gemayel's men
carried out the horrendous massacre of Sabra and Shatila, after the
assassination of Bashir Gemayel, the uncle of the man who was
murdered this week. The massacre was overseen by Elie Hobeika from
the roof of the headquarters of the Israeli general Amos Yaron.
Afterwards, Hobeika became a minister under Syrian auspices.
Another person responsible for the slaughter was Samir Geagea, the
only one who was put on trial in a Lebanese court. He was condemned
to several life prison terms and later pardoned. This week he was
one of the main speakers at the funeral of Pierre Gemayel the
grandson.
In 1982, the Shiites welcomed the invading Israeli army with
flowers, rice and candy. A few months later they started a guerilla
war against them, which lasted for 18 years, in the course of which
Hizbullah became a major force in Lebanon.
One of the leading Maronites in the fight against the Syrians was
General Michel Aoun, who was elected president by the Maronites and
later driven out. Now he is an ally of Hizbullah, the main
supporter of Syria.
All this resembles Italy at the time of the Renaissance or Germany
during the 30-Years War. But in Lebanon this is the present and the
foreseeable future.
In such a reality, using the term "democracy" is, of course, a
joke. By agreement, the government of the country is divided
between the communities. The president is always a Maronite, the
prime minister a Sunni, the speaker of the parliament a Shiite. The
same applies to all positions in the country, at all levels: a
member of a community cannot aspire to a position suited to his
talents if it "belongs" to another community. Almost all citizens
vote according to family affiliation. A Druze voter, for example,
has no chance of overthrowing Walid Jumblat, whose family has ruled
the Druze community for 500 years at least (and whose father was
murdered by the Syrians.) He doles out all the jobs "belonging" to
his community.
The Lebanese parliament is a senate of community chiefs, who divide
the spoils between them. The "democratic coalition" which was put
in power by the Americans after the murder of the Sunni Prime
Minister Rafik Hariri, is a temporary alliance of the Maronite,
Sunni and Druze chiefs. The "opposition", which enjoys Syrian
patronage, is composed of the Shiites and one Maronite faction. The
wheel can turn at a moment's notice, when other alliances are
formed.
Hizbullah, which appears to Israelis as an extension of Iran and
Syria, is first of all a Shiite movement that strives to obtain for
its community a larger part of the Lebanese pie, as indeed is its
due in accordance with its size. Hassan Nasrallah - who is also the
scion of an important family - has his eyes on the government in
Beirut, not on the mosques in Jerusalem.
WHAT DOES all this say about the present situation?
For decades now, Israel has been stirring the Lebanese pot. In the
past, it supported the Gemayel family but was bitterly
disappointed: the family's "Phalanges" (the name was taken from
Fascist Spain, which was greatly admired by grandfather Pierre),
were revealed in the 1982 war as a gang of thugs without military
value. But the Israeli involvement in Lebanon continues to this
day. The aim is to eliminate Hizbullah, remove the Syrians and
threaten nearby Damascus. All these tasks are hopeless.
Some history: in the 30s, when the Maronites were the leading force
in Lebanon, the Maronite Patriarch expressed open sympathy for the
Zionist enterprise. At that time, many young people from Tel-Aviv
and Haifa studied at the American University of Beirut, and rich
Jewish people from Palestine spent their holidays at Lebanese
resorts. Once, before the founding of Israel, I crossed the
Lebanese border by mistake and a Lebanese Gendarme politely showed
me the way back.
During the first years of Israel, the Lebanese border was our only
peaceful one. Those days there was a saying: "Lebanon will be the
second Arab country to make peace with Israel. It will not dare to
be the first". Only in 1970, when King Hussein drove the PLO from
Jordan into Lebanon, with the active help of Israel, did this
border heat up. Now even Fuad Siniora, the prime minister appointed
by the Americans, feels compelled to declare that "Lebanon will be
the last Arab state to make peace with Israel!"
All efforts to remove Syrian influence from Lebanon are bound to
fail. In order to understand this, it is enough to look at the map.
Historically, Lebanon is a part of the land of Syria ("Sham" in
Arabic). The Syrians have never resigned themselves to the fact
that the French colonial regime tore Lebanon from their land.
The conclusions: First, let's not get stuck in the Lebanese mess
again. As experience has shown, we shall always come out the
losers. Second, in order to have peace on our northern border, all
the potential enemies, and first of all Syria, must be
involved.
Meaning: we must give back the Golan Heights.
The Bush administration forbids our government to talk with the
Syrians. They want to talk with them themselves, when the time
comes. Quite possibly, they will then sell them the Golan in return
for Syrian help in Iraq. If so, should we not hurry and "sell" them
the Golan (which belongs to them anyhow) for a better price for
ourselves?
Lately, voices have been heard, even of senior army people, that
hint at this possibility. It should be said loudly and clearly:
Because of a few thousands of settlers and the politicians who do
not dare to confront them, we are liable to be dragged into more
superfluous wars and to endanger the population of Israel.
This is the third conclusion: There is only one way to win a war in
Lebanon - and that is to avoid it.
 |
 |